Yes, this is exactly as you say. Isolation is very important, and I carefully make sure that it is guaranteed to users who need it. This has been working well for a few years now, GRDB.swift is very robust. My recent focus was on SQLite snapshots, and you and other members of this mailing list have been very helpful by completing the existing documentation :-)
Gwendal On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 7:41 PM Richard Damon <rich...@damon-family.org> wrote: > On 9/29/19 11:40 AM, Gwendal Roué wrote: > > Thank you very much Keith. > > > > Apologies for my imprecise vocabulary, and the use of the same "snapshot" > > word with different meanings. > > > > I have used the term "snapshot isolation" as used in > > https://www.sqlite.org/isolation.html; But I'll remember about > > REPEATABLE-READ isolation. > > > > I also thank you very much for confirming that preventing checkpoints > > allows the WAL markers to remain valid. > > > > My goal is to provide a set of concurrency primitives that are useful for > > GUI app developers. I'm learning a lot about SQLite in the process, of > > course. > > And since you reused the connection (otherwise you just need to keep the > transaction open and the snapshot was preserved) you don't have isolation. > > Quote: > > > No Isolation Between Operations On The Same Database Connection > > SQLite provides isolation between operations in separate database > connections. However, there is no isolation between operations that > occur within the same database connection. > > > > -- > Richard Damon > > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
